Skip to main content
11:00 am
logjam. the blackhawks were shot down and u.s. withdrew troops. almost every western government withdrew their troops. so the best armed troops left somalia. in the end the operation collapsed. this was end of '93. beginning of that before we had to run. governments go through these and become risk averse. nobody was willing teth send additional troops and. >> host: you right in the book that everyone that they had been watching it somalia. >> guest: that's correct. it back a lot of the fighters in
11:01 am
rwanda tolar peacekeeping information those that we watch cnn . they killed ten dozen soldiers in the belgian. ahead they give instructions to the soldiers to protect only themselves. the commander was left with several water bed to do his work with a whole nation of flame and the systematic genocide to a gun . some governments claim they did not know what was happening. i ask what they do when they found that it was happening? they said ten planes to evacuate their nationals and allowed the war to continue.
11:02 am
in the end we blame the u.n. we only to find a better way. of course somalia, rwanda, bosnia, experiences. that was one of the reasons why i felt as international community we need to find a way of tackling these crisis, and that led to the responsibility to protect. >> host: talk will bit more. we have an extraordinary count in the book in january of 1994. receiving a cable from an informant who basically told you exactly what was born to happen, and it did happen. so the idea that things take effect, you have the information. yourself spent time calling heads of governments to ask for more troops. >> yes. a force commander met with an
11:03 am
informant who claimed at the time to have the permission that the plan to kill. there was an arms cache. it was the mass of about. he knew had been collected. he could take it to the location. thought about it and felt maybe he should go at it do it. we have headquarters and advised him to be careful. you don't have the mandate of the means. it sometimes just one of the most difficult decision for peacekeeper. if he have limited resources than the others call for reinforcements cut off his that he can do.
11:04 am
that situation given the somalia example, if he had those, the force would have been withdrawn. in fact he lost when this happened. and so it was because. as one said, he did not have the mandate. a realistic assessment of their appetite of member states to take out these type of crisis. i don't think we would have had the resources we need. so we said to be careful. >> host: when you look at rwanda, and ensure you think about this of the new book. this is something that marks the 800,000 people from mexico. in retrospect, is there something different you could have done? >> i think one area that we discussed, at that time the u.s. was very shy of the media.
11:05 am
we could have used the media as a tool to put pressure on the government's tougher resources. not that we would necessarily have received it, but we could have used the media in shattered from the rooftops to tell was happening. the much impact on the people of rwanda. but the nation's outside rwanda, the people outside rwanda may have said, we cannot sit back. let's do something. what that something would be, i do not know. >> host: would ease but to the government in your phone call with had a state. rwanda was staffing to what indeed -- what was it is said to you? >> the ambassadors here.
11:06 am
the think the reason, first of all, we think vetted come back which invariably meant to, we don't have the resources. we'll have the men to go. you never really get the positive response needed to deal to take on the force. and at that time the canadian military adviser in the department of peacekeeping. we have a system for the source arrangements. we had approached each government test in time of crisis if we were to approach of , what would you do? some say we will give of
11:07 am
italian. others said effete hospital. others said we would give you a patrol car. so he came back to me and said, sir, we tested the system. a very effective. it worked well. at least we know that we are getting nothing. his reaction. and, of course, if they don't want to give them to you, there's nothing we can do. the u.n., reinvestment rates, coverage is, some governments get the sense that would lead paratroops, passing them. it to the increase very much. reimbursed the government of thousand dollars per month. some of these trips cost the government's four to five times
11:08 am
or eight times as much. >> host: will get on in just a second, but in essence this is what you describe in somalia and rwanda. get to the heart of what they write about. the times when you in peacekeepers are needed or call for, by their very nature the time to the superpower does not feel it is in its key initial security. that is what they're always going to be seen, the marginal cases in terms of national-security interest. can it ever work when you're asking the country to intervene in you feel as though something they have to intervene for. >> guest: you are right. before you could, when gorbachev into the system we have this situation or most of the peacekeepers came from countries
11:09 am
outside the a minute members of the security council. there was a sense that if you brought them in you may jeopardize the operation. after 89 some of them participated in these peacekeeping reparations, which was in some cases hopeful because they have the best trained and well equipped bit and women that could do this job. the peacekeeper is usually a well-trained soldiers. it's that a soldier, a well-trained soldier is the only one who can do it effectively. when these countries have interests we are able to put together a coalition of the people to go in and out. where they have no interest, the situation you describe, precisely what happens. in fact, the u.s. used to describe some crisis as in the
11:10 am
sense that they have the japanese. a big country or a powerful country is not interested, they leave the fight. they lead the fight for peacekeepers. they lead the fight to put the coalition of. there is no real national interest. you don't see it. this is what -- this is why what bush senior debt was credit score very. clinton followed in somalia because there was really no national interest. compassion and humanitarian that could propel the to go win. it. >> host: we will talk about bosnia and africa and more of the book "interventions" in just a moment to the kofi annan. regard to take a quick break. >> guest: thank you. >> on the go? "after words" is available via
11:11 am
pot test. visit and click pot test. select which what you would like to download and listen to "after words" when you travel. >> host: before the break we were talking about rwanda and somalia and weather in cases where there is not a national security interest of a major power, crisis. of course a year-and-a-half after rwanda we had the massacre . a little different because it was in the heart of europe and there was more of a security interest in the european powers involved. >> you're absolutely right. bastille was deferred. bosnia had the attention. bosnia had forces required that rwanda did not have.
11:12 am
the issues between the member states, the europeans had deployed troops to the un peacekeeping and subsequently nato. leaving. rather cynical, and they kept the u.n. peacekeepers hostage. this really unnerved the governments. saw another aspect of peacekeeping. we did not prepare the population for the possibility that there could be risks. we give the impression it's always a risk free. so when you get into these situations where either someone is killed or taken hostage, the population gets very upset. the politicians panic, and often said bring the boys so. so there is that weakness in the peacekeeping operation.
11:13 am
it is a national effort. they would take the casualties. sometimes even reinforce the troops of the to get the work done. in bosnia what has happened was at one stage when it became clear that firmer action needed to be taken against the bosnian-serb army, the government's with troops at the time, many europeans, did not want to use their power because they felt it could place their men and women deployed there a risk. the u.s. which had more troops on the ground when it to use their power. until it was resolved. one of the un commanders, in an interview saying we need troops now. the u.s. is saying it will come. this is the very courageous, and
11:14 am
this made my good friend that led albright absolutely fearful. in fact it was not crazy. that was the sort of tension and the feeling that existed at the time. but with the issue was resolved and the power was brought to bear, he forced the serbian army . the secretary. >> host: in july of 1995, over red. the united nations peacekeeping stood by and let it happen. >> guest: would not use the phrase united nations peacekeepers stood by and let it happen. we had companies. this is part of the problem.
11:15 am
very much involved establishing safe areas, i had my commanders do a study of what would be required vote to make that area safe. they suggested to. take advantage. they could but attack the people. second, it would require that 4,600 troops. the member states were having none of that. they change the mandate, and there was no statement in it.
11:16 am
7,600. and when you do that you're -- they did not have the resources to do it properly. and the peacekeepers, and this was several areas agree. so the peacekeepers who were there, when the serbian army really the could us stand up. defend themselves much less the local population. >> host: a mockery of weather is a safe haven. >> guest: i went to five this is the other point i was doing to make. because if you say you're bringing in people to protect you and assure your safety and have a safe haven, the sense is
11:17 am
finally. the un troops are here. nothing would happen. and the expectation, realistic and lowering expectations and exploiting to the people of the public will we can do not do his part of the problem with the un peacekeepers. because in the middle east, lebanon, became a village. because people gather round it to give them some safety. >> host: in that case you don't think they could have done anything more than they did? >> guest: they did not have the resources. they could have fought, but they did not have the sort of weapons
11:18 am
that are required. there were completely outgunned and -- >> host: in the book the whole government, i mean -- >> guest: the, yeah. but it was also. impossible situation to put those troops of. i used to talk to the commanders. i think yes, we can stand and fight and take the blog. the soldiers. they come with reinforcements of 10,000 tomorrow. they have no means the reinforcements. and at that time the cover was not that effective. so the commander sometimes makes judgments that we plumb the
11:19 am
outset may not agree with, but they also know that the mandate to what is important is what we are going to take on these operations we should go when the necessary force to be able to get the work done. in peacekeeping we have a theory that you sometimes have to show force in order not to use force. i mean, for example, when the u.s. went to somalia they arrived massively. there was no way of astoria weapons were going to take the mob. the show force of in order not to use force. the u.n. does not often have that forced to show. we don't have forced to give the essential work done. the story are restored, in the
11:20 am
areas, we get a minimal resources required to be the mandate was to find to read, the peacekeepers should use their presence to dissuade the tax on the bins states. and the member society. we avesta to protect them because we know you don't have the means. this is where we have chosen their words very carefully. use your presence to dissuade. behave as though nothing has changed. so gentlemanly him. there will shoot. it was an illusion. >> host: said dutch peacekeeping operation. nations have gone through. >> guest: i do not see how much more. in hindsight people come up with
11:21 am
something they should have done or could have done. they could have worked and taken great risks for themselves. and sure there would have done it if they were assured of reinforcements and a force on the horizon that would come to their aid. >> host: another coincidence we talked about earlier that happen in africa. from,. whittaker but the lack of institutions in what the impact of military regimes, but you also write, africa would not be able to land forces easily as others. >> guest: i can give you some examples. my first summit of the african was an organization.
11:22 am
it worked. i decided when should tart very clearly to the african leaders and africans about the role of military and government and suggested to them that we should not encourage overthrows and welcome those who would take power by force. you have to really respect the rule of law. it had become the rule. but there would not except people who come to power by force. in fact, recall one of the leaders, if you misbehave we issue you a red card. and it has had a real impact.
11:23 am
recently they said we would handle it. right to have elections. we do not intend to stay. they are prevented from joining the other heads of states. this is an example that up the u.n. would follow and make it universal. we never went that route. at least it has happened and have an impact. also have made the statements on governments and human rights to respect the rule of law in a way has also empowers several societies. civil society can quote me and not go to jail. they make the stigmas directly by themselves, they get into trouble. and so with the robust civil society in africa empower encourage to speak up, to put pressure on the government to do the right thing and to insist on
11:24 am
respecting the rule of law. we are seeing progress banner seeing some very good ngos. and so i think in the way i could be dismissed as an old colonial trying to interfere. i could speak frankly to them. most of the tunnel listen. the. >> host: have you ever had a frank conversations with secretary general's? >> guest: i met him on many occasions and. we talked about african politics . we talked about the fight against hiv aids. get the people to use condoms. zimbabwe really was hit by the epidemic. and he was trained to read and
11:25 am
to reassure him i said, i think you should think about it. the secretary-general comes to condoms, the pope but neither one. would not budge on it. it was not the only one. another head of state who might try to encourage speak out. as a consequence of silence on the issue. and yet it was a situation where silence meant death. we should speak up to educate, and encourage them to speak about contraception and increase the programs. i'm the father of the nation. get enough to out and speak to my people of contraception.
11:26 am
speak to them and the kurds and to be promiscuous. >> host: all the more broadly of our global statement. to turn and say people are suffering. the impact of having that kind of the role, could you have that kind of role? >> guest: i spoke to bill ghandi and other leaders about the time to move on, but i cannot ascribe to myself the authority. the secretary-general or even today. i can offer that. i was in africa and spoke to 1 liter.
11:27 am
see what has happened in north africa and the middle east. a strong transitional winds blowing. what they resisted. should think of the future. he should think of what you're going to do next. i can discuss it with them in that context, but i cannot go and say you must leave, you must resign. so some of this has been voted then, but they have stayed in may general statements about the democratic rotation of leaders. so in those kinds of discussions , i cannot go and pound the table and demanded to quit.
11:28 am
>> host: he took on the role of you an invoice of syria. i'm tempted to say, a punishment having had so many. >> guest: yes. >> host: what did you hope you could achieve? you took on a roll that many people was calling to fail. >> guest: many people considered it mission impossible >> host: your success. >> guest: yes. he, like me, could not say no. could not have said no when they saw the mystery. the potential for a crisis in syria that was likely to spill over the borders of syria and affect the whole region. people intend to make simplistic comparisons. we will not implode. syria could, and this will go
11:29 am
beyond its borders and create a problem for everybody. and i felt i had to try. i did my best. of course, in the end i had to let go because the government, in particular, was in transit. the imposition of those placed an arms, and there was an increasingly to regulation of the conflict. the region was divided command the security council that gave me the mandate was also divided even though i tried very hard to bring them together. the last effort is geneva on the 30th of june. it brought together the foreign ministers of the eminent members of the security council. so there were all in geneva with the foreign minister's office, iraq, turkey, kuwait, and the secretary generaof the league
11:30 am
of the un. and we came to an agreement on political settlement. you need political transition. they defined what political transition meant to. an interim government with foreign military powers. ensuring security forces have top months leaders. is sure you continue to offer institutions and services so that you don't have chaotic collapse this. but the moment you begin talking of an interim government with full executive powers, it means a sod is on his way out. the difference as exists today is for some he has to leave before the process. others to believe starting the process. and i have thought that they would come to new york. the security council and build on it.
11:31 am
but instead they got into another action. the 1910. and the geneva communicate, and sitting there not be endorsed. >> host: do you worry that the peace plan, which gave -- the process of negotiating but actually just carry on killing people speak to that is what some people say, but i believe that the elements of the six. plan would have to be implemented as we go sooner or later. it was designed to end the violence, to ensure that the thousands who are imprisoned through access to a humanitarian
11:32 am
help and so forth and so to create an environment that would lead us to the political discussions which would have to come. but they gave the sub. let me put it this way. i came in a year after the conflict started. and i'm sure they're going to say the same. what is it that should have been done, could have been done by the international community? the discussion and investigation stopped us from doing. i also think that if we had had a concerted and determined support with pressure on the parties we probably could have had a chance. >> host: support and pressure from where?
11:33 am
>> the unit to the international community. >> host: but in the interests of community never united, russia was not going to put pressure on a soft. the mission, and a sense, was set up to fail. that just gave him an excuse, time, bought him time in which to carry out killings assistance >> guest: and not sure you are entirely right. i know the argument that people say. you have many people, even today , who are not interested in ending the negotiations were diplomatic help. they see the only solution as a military one. they're waiting for intervention mahal, waiting for more arms. it's one option. we need to be careful.
11:34 am
the whole problem is one individual. even if he were to leave today, we have more problems to deal with. the my approach which i also believe, they signed onto it and should have gone then to put pressure on the parties. for example, when the cease-fire went into force, that morning the whole country was quiet. both sides stop fighting. for a while violence went down 80%. it escalated again. what to the countries do to try and help consolidate, to put pressure on their friends in the
11:35 am
region, the groups they have supported to go along with a cease-fire because if you did not have a serious political transition plan, getting rid of the leader will not be enough. should that be so much we have somebody else doing the job. i should not complicate his life note is the time, a brilliant negotiator, very wise men. if he gets the support, the united support from the security council he may make a difference . >> host: that is a very big if. um, you say in the book, talking about the arabs bring. you remain optimistic about the changes that are taking place in the middle east. there are plenty of examples. we don't know whether the
11:36 am
changes, still uncertainty in egypt. what makes you optimistic? >> guest: i think the optimism comes from the fact that for the first time in decades the people in these countries are standing a to discuss how they are governed and by whom and to demand a say in their own destiny. i firmly believe that societies are built of three pillars, stability, if you wish peace and stability, the second one is the development and growth. at third, which happens to be the most important is respect for rule of law and human life because honestly, you cannot have long-term development with stability and both have to be routed in the rule of law and
11:37 am
respect for human life. if we have tended in the past as communities, including the u.s., dealing with these nations to focus on the first pillar, stability combustible country. in that we will move on to the second pillar. the economic, stable, good economic growth, but we forget. the most important. end this is what the people are demanding. and in the end it will work. they should be able to build a healthy society based upon the three pillars that i'm referring to. >> host: to you think that's a lack of adherence by the international community to those three pillars, specifically the third would have, perhaps to make peace in the middle east? something, of course, that was a huge part of you're trying as
11:38 am
secretary-general of the united nations difficult to achieve. >> guest: i think that is part of it. in the sense that they did not want to take on france. allies, and it did not want to create a zone. and so everyone approached the problem very softly. they raised it. there was a tendency to refocus on security, arms exchange, economic stability and very rarely talking about rule of law and human rights. another part of the world, but not so much in that region. and because of sensitivity. i think the people have brought in that change. the arabs praying has opened the door. now governments are thinking much more broadly about human
11:39 am
rights and rule of law. >> host: you criticize the united states, particularly in this area for having what you call a reflexive reaction against any palestinian. this the two palestinian that. >> host: it utilization of the united nations. do you think america was standing in the way of the broader peace effort in the middle east? >> i cannot say that america -- i don't say america is standing in the wake. what i can say is that it will require a sustained and determined effort to buy the u.s. working with some of the countries of the region and europe to bring about peace in the region. it has not been sustained. in fact, not sure i can say their is a peace process today. and i think the u.s. has such as
11:40 am
a pivotal role to play. both parties look to other u.s. leaders. there were times when it looked as if one had got very close. and president clinton was trying to get a solution working day and night. at that point he seemed very close. this was 2000, run there. says that we have not been that close, and there have not been a real effort to get the parties together. there are people who are now beginning to wonder if the 2-plan solution is not evaporating. there may be questionable bases with a two-stage solution. >> host: kofi annan, you call the book "interventions: a life in war and peace." must ask you finally, looking back at your long career in global affairs, more were more
11:41 am
piece? >> i think in times of war there are fewer worse today when we had the past. and there are also fewer interstate worse. we have all the problems. so many problems, that just civil wars. international or the revised crime, concern over weapons of mass destruction. we have concerns over the environment and its impact on our lives. we have the health issue. fly round the world very quickly. and so in terms of war, there are few or worse today, but there are many other problems that we need to deal with in addition to war which either did
11:42 am
not exist or were not entirely conscious of. >> host: kofi annan, the book is "interventions." the key for joining us here. >> guest: thank you. >> that was "after words", book tv signature program in which authors of the latest nonfiction books are interviewed by journalists, pulp -- public policy makers, legislators, and others familiar with their material. "after words" airs every weekend on book tv at 10:00 p.m. on saturday, 12 and 9:00 p.m. on sunday, at 12:00 a.m. on monday. you can watch "after words" on line. cut that and click on "after words" in the book tv series of topics list of the upper right inside the page. [applause]
11:43 am
[applause] >> hi, everyone. can you hear me? [applause] while. this is so exciting. [applause] this is my very first book. and my very first and probably only book signing. [applause] this is so cool. this is so good. well, you know, let me just say, i am so proud of this product. it is the book, everything i would have imagined. i wanted the book to be beautiful, and that think that the pictures are absolutely beautiful. i could tell because when molly and sasha picked it up, you know, it's like, your book.
11:44 am
out nice. they actually got pulled then by the pictures. and then they could not put it down. they started looking through, and then they started actually reading it. eventually i got a thumbs up. so that is what we hope the book will be. the book is really not just the story of a white house garden and how it came to be and how we had our ups and downs and trials and tribulations, but it is also a story of community, gardens across the country. everything from a wonderful community garden in hawaii to some excellent school gardens that are happening, right smack dab in the middle of the york with some great school kids. so the stories of the work the people doing across this country are really an important part of the book as well. we also talk about one of my key initiatives which is let's move, and it is all about getting or consult the. the book shares that journey and
11:45 am
some of the interesting statistics and word that is going on all across the country to help our kids the health your lives. and then it is a little practical, too. it gives a few tips. of the best starter in the world, but i have a great team of national park service people, and i had my that croft and putnam kids, but the men bancroft its. they are my partners in crime in this respect. these two schools have been with us from the very beginning. that was one of the things we said we started exploring whether or not we could plant a garden on the south lawn. they would have to be a teaching garden. it would have to be a garden that kids could participate in and understand where there food comes from and engage in that process because that is really what i learned in my own life. when i have all my kids involved in the food they ate. we did not start in chicago, but we went to farmers' markets and get them involved in really changing their diets and noting that process.
11:46 am
they accepted it a lot more, and we have seen that with these kids. you know, these kids are working in the gardens in their own schools. i know that there be back ideas and questions to their own families and helping to change the way they eat and do great things. these kids have been amazing. and they have just been a pleasure. they come to the white house. they don't get starstruck. they don't look around. they get to work. they get to work. they get our garden planted and harvested in a matter of 10-15 minutes, sometimes 30 minutes. they just get it done, so we could not do this without the. i am so proud of you all. so proud of you all. thank you. thank you for helping me. [applause] thank you for helping me. i just want to thank you all for standing in the rain, coming out i am just thrilled, and i hope you all enjoy the book. i hope it becomes the beginning
11:47 am
of many conversations in your own homes and communities, and i hope that it leads to a healthier generation of kids at some point. there are also some good recipes in there that are easy to follow and are pretty good. white house chef. i urge you to try them. thank you so much to buy another four to seeing you all appear. all right. [applause] all right. all right. [background noises] [background noises]
11:48 am
all right. this is the first side copy -- signed copy. [background noises] kids, come on up. you guys want to come around? could your book. let's go. c'mon. [background noises] [background noises]
11:49 am
[background noises] >> thanks, sweetie. thanks for all your help. there you go. very precious. you can see the picture of the un there. >> it is so good to see you guys. [background noises] >> a key for coming. how're you. it's so great to meet you. though, my goodness. thank you.
11:50 am
so good to have you here. [background noises] >> thank you. [background noises] >> ready to party. [background noises] [applause] thank you for coming out. we appreciate you.
11:51 am
you know me. becky for taking the time. [background noises] [background noises] [background noises]
11:52 am
>> thank you so much for coming. >> sent you. it's so nice to me. thank you. >> thank you. [background noises] >> how are you doing? do well. >> that's what we think about. we're doing it for these kids. [background noises] thank you.
11:53 am
[background noises] you know, thank you. >> yes. >> how are you?
11:54 am
a day. but it has yet. >> you know. [background noises] >> thank you for taking the time. my pleasure. >> very proud. >> eighty. >> what's going on, ladies? [background noises]
11:55 am
your age? excellent. >> your 11. good. interested in gardening. good, healthy eating. good. [background noises] great to meet you. thanks for coming. the know, the girls. i don't know their names. thank you. [background noises]
11:56 am
[background noises] >> here are some of the top-selling nonfiction titles and independent bookstores around the country, according to in be bound. this list reflects sales as of september 20th. first on the list
11:57 am
11:58 am
. >> and welcome to the number two of the 12th annual national book festival. this is book tv live coverage from washington d.c. here is the line above events today. in just a minute susan her talk will be talking about her book, dangerous ambition about rebecca west and dorothy thompson. she will be in the history and biography tent where we will be live all day long. following this talk, john farrell will be in the tent to talk about his new book. then associate editor of the "washington post," his most recent book is a biography of president obama, barack obama, the story. it is called following mr. meredith. bob woodward her. his 19th book, the press and politics. he will be talking in the tent this afternoon. then pulitzer prize winner
11:59 am
daniel juergen will be joining us here on our book tv set here on the mall to talk about his newest book, the quest, energy use in america. then christopher brown will join us for our call -in segment. eminent outlaws. gay writers in america. and then finally in the history and biography tend sally smith who has written a biography of the queen of england. she will be talking about her book. and then book tv will be joining her on set, on stage for a live national call in. so stick with us all day long for our live coverage here on book tv on c-span2. however, if that is not what you are looking for and you are looking for different authors, you can go to there are 16 tense down here at the national book festival, and we are able to cover two of them. the other is a contemporary

Book TV After Words
CSPAN September 23, 2012 11:00am-12:00pm EDT

Kofi Annan Education. (2012) 'Interventions A Life in War and Peace.'

TOPIC FREQUENCY U.s. 10, Somalia 8, Un 6, Bosnia 5, Us 5, America 5, U.n. 5, Syria 4, Geneva 3, Kofi Annan 3, United Nations 3, Europe 2, Washington 2, Africa 2, Clinton 1, Christopher Brown 1, Daniel Juergen 1, Croft 1, John Farrell 1, Sasha 1
Network CSPAN
Duration 01:00:00
Scanned in San Francisco, CA, USA
Source Comcast Cable
Tuner Channel 91 (627 MHz)
Video Codec mpeg2video
Audio Cocec ac3
Pixel width 704
Pixel height 480
Sponsor Internet Archive
Audio/Visual sound, color

disc Borrow a DVD of this show
info Stream Only
Uploaded by
TV Archive
on 9/23/2012